by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 17, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

romising to restore funding to Yasser Arafat's successor Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, the White House officially rejected Palestine's duly elected Hamas government. Since winning 76 seats in the parliament Jan. 26, 2006, Hamas swept into office, allowing democracy to upend years of corruption and incompetence, institutionalizing poverty in the Palestinian territories. When Hamas took over, U.S. and Europe cut off funding, pressuring Hamas' newly elected Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh to cozy up to Iran and Saudi Arabia. It was the perfect storm, inviting radical Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to promise Hamas millions in support for a government committed to the destruction of Israel. While reluctantly accepting prior agreements with Israel, Haniyeh refused to accept U.N. Resolution 242, the framework for lasting Miedeast peace.

      Agreeing to restore support to Abbas, the U.S. has thumbed its nose at Palestine's elected government, inviting all-out civil war. Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip last week, easily defeating the Abbas' Fatah forces. Hamas and Fatah had been in a violent power struggle for months, resulting in scores of deaths. “There is one authority, one law and one legitimate gun in all areas of out homeland in the West Bank and Gaza,” declared Abbas, rejecting Hamas' elected authority. Haniyeh denounced Abbas' power-grab, refusing to surrender authority. “The council of ministers considers the steps adopted by President Mahmoud Abbas to . . . have no basis in law,” reminding Abbas that Hamas is Palestine's legitimately elected government. By circumventing Hamas, considered as a terrorist group by the U.S. and Israel, the White House throws its weight behind a benevolent dictator.

      President George W. Bush's “democracy agenda” holds free elections as the basis for creating legitimate governments. Unfortunately, when the people speak, the U.S. doesn't always like the results. When Tehran Mayor President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad was voted into office June 25, 2005 with 62% of the vote, the U.S. didn't like the outcome. Since then, the U.S. has been in a bitter diplomatic battle to stop Iran's feverish pursuit of enriched uranium, the precursor to building A-bombs. Not since the Ayatollah Khomenei, has the U.S. confronted such a skillful anti-American propagandist. Recent evidence has revealed Iran's support of Shiite militias and insurgents battling U.S. occupation in Iraq. Two carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf threaten to open a new front, finding growing support. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Con.) recently called for a targeted bombing of Iran.

      Already mired in a grisly war in Iraq, the U.S. can ill-afford to follow Lieberman's advice. Whether Iran supports Iraq's insurgents or Shiite militias both militarily and politically doesn't justify opening a new front. “I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans,” said Lieberman, urging Bush to consider targeted bombings of Iran's Republican Guard supporting the insurgency. Lieberman cites military evidence attributing over 200 U.S. casualties to Iran. Whether it's true or not, opening up a new front in Iran would be catastrophic to the U.S. mission in Iraq. U.S. Iraq commander David Petraeus signaled today that, despite the troop surge now at full strength in its fifth month, violence in Iraq continues unabated. He sees a long-term presence in Iraq, comparable to U.S. commitments in South Korea.

      With Hamas routing Fatah in Gaza last week, it's going to be a mess for the U.S. to support Abbas without dealing with Haniyeh. Like it or not, the U.S. promoted free elections in Palestine, resulting in a clear victory for Hamas. Abbas can't arbitrarily fire Hamas or convene an emergency Cabinet declaring its authority without promoting civil war. A power-grab with U.S. support invites the same kind of resistance found in Iraq. No matter how much blood and cash the U.S. spends, it won't win political support among indigenous peoples seeking tribal or religious leaders. It's “time to work together for Palestine,” said newly appointed Interior Minister Abdei Razak Yeheyeh, pretending that convening an emergency Cabinet will somehow resolve the disputed sovereignty won by Hamas in parliamentary elections. It's too late throwing money at Abbas to upend Hamas.

      Bush's Middle East “democracy agenda” has proved disastrous to U.S. interests. While few people have nostalgia for Saddam, his authoritarian regime kept out terrorists and prevented Iraq from cleaving along ethnic lines. Promoting free elections among populations seeking fanatical political and religious leaders invites the mess found in Iraq and now in Palestine. Few doubt whether Abbas would be a better peace partner for Israel or ally to the U.S. That doesn't resolve the inescapable truth that rank-and-file Palestinians voted in Hamas as their elected representatives. Instead of supporting authoritarian regimes or dictators supportive of U.S. interests, Bush chose to roll the dice with democracy and got burned. Funneling more cash and arms to Abbas invites the same kind of terrorism and resistance found in Iraq. Before the U.S. gets into another mess in Iran, it must clean up the ones already created.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.